Trueba: UW followed the law with sexual harassment open records request

Important information was misstated or left out altogether in a recent opinion piece by Jonathan Anderson and David Pritchard about the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s response to requests for information on sexual harassment allegations against faculty, staff and students.

At UW-Madison, we believe strongly in Wisconsin’s public records law. That law says government records are generally public and acknowledges there are specific circumstances when it is appropriate or necessary to withhold certain information. When an agency withholds or redacts information, it must provide an appropriate reason for doing so.

The article wrongly claimed that the university “withheld many names of employees who were found to have committed sexual harassment.”

In fact, the university released the names of all but two employees who were found to have committed harassment. And we told journalists why we had withheld the two names. One employee was a graduate student and federal privacy law prohibits us from releasing his name. The other was fired for having committed sexual assault in a work unit that was so small that disclosing his name would have threatened the confidentiality of the victim.

These reasons are in keeping with what the law allows and I believe your readers would understand that our decision was justified. But that information was not included.

The article also claimed that the records were “heavily redacted.” In fact, the redactions were minimal and again, were made for specific reasons that were shared with reporters and allowed by law. The names of complainants and in some cases, their job title and workplace on campus, were withheld to protect their privacy. We also withheld the names of people accused of harassment who were not found to have committed wrongdoing. And we generally withhold personal contact information such as cell phone numbers.

In the case in which the employee was fired for sexual assault, the redactions amounted to fewer than 500 words out of the 5,524-word document.

These redactions did not prevent journalists or the public from getting a thorough understanding of the allegations being made and the university’s response. They did provide important assurances that the university will protect the privacy of the complainants and witnesses in these cases.

Without such assurances of privacy, victims and witnesses will hesitate to come forward. If people are unwilling to participate because they fear their names or other identifying information will be made public, it will impair the university’s ability to address misconduct.

I hope that in the future, you will provide a more complete picture of the university’s public records response to your readers so they can judge for themselves whether we are appropriately balancing the public’s right to know with other important rights such as an individual’s right to privacy.

Cathleen Trueba is the director of the Office of Compliance at UW-Madison.